• Michiel DoormanEmail author
  • Paul Drijvers
  • Koeno Gravemeijer
  • Peter Boon
  • Helen Reed
Open Access


The concept of function is a central but difficult topic in secondary school mathematics curricula, which encompasses a transition from an operational to a structural view. The question in this paper is how the use of computer tools may foster this transition. With domain-specific pedagogical knowledge on the learning of function as a point of departure and the notions of emergent modeling and instrumentation as design heuristics, a potentially rich technology-intensive learning arrangement for grade 8 students was designed and field-tested. The results suggest that the relationship between tool use and conceptual development benefits from preliminary activities, from tools offering representations that allow for progressively increasing levels of reasoning, and from intertwinement with paper-and-pencil work.


emergent modeling function concept instrumentation mathematics education technology 


  1. Ainley, J., Bills, L. & Wilson, K. E. (2005). Designing spreadsheet-based tasks for purposeful algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(3), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkus, R., Hand, B. & Seymour, J. (2008). Understanding students’ understanding of functions. Mathematics Teaching, 207, 10–13.Google Scholar
  3. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C. (1985). Towards a solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 201–226.Google Scholar
  5. Bloch, I. (2003). Teaching functions in a graphic milieu: What forms of knowledge enable students to conjecture and prove? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boon, P. (2008). AlgebraArrows. Retrieved at June 9th, 2008, from
  7. Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J. & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S. & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 352–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2&3), 187–215.Google Scholar
  10. Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31 (3/4), 175–190.Google Scholar
  11. Doorman, L. M. & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2009). Emergent modeling: discrete graphs to support the understanding of change and velocity. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 199–211.Google Scholar
  12. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Van Gisbergen, S. & Gravemeijer, K. (2007). Tool use in a technology-rich learning arrangement for the concept of function. In Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Philippou, G., Proceedings of CERME 5, 1389–1398.Google Scholar
  13. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–123). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elia, I., Panaoura, A., Eracleous, A. & Gagatsis, A. (2007). Relations between secondary pupils’ conceptions about functions and problem solving in different representations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 533–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falcade, R., Laborde, C. & Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. The Netherlands: Reidel: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education—China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 155–177.Google Scholar
  21. Gravemeijer, K. (2007). Emergent modelling as a precursor to mathematical modelling. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education. The 14th ICMI Study (pp 137–144). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Gravemeijer, K. P. E., Lehrer, R., van Oers, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.). (2002). Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from the learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.Google Scholar
  25. Hoyles, C. & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 323–349). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janvier, C. (1987). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 27–32). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Kalchman, M. & Koedinger, K. (2005). Teaching and learning functions. In S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn mathematics (pp. 351–392). Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  28. Kaput, J. & Schorr, R. (2007). Changing representational infrastructures changes most everything: The case of SimCalc, algebra and calculus. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the learning and teaching of mathematics: Vol. 2 cases and perspectives (pp. 211–253). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Kuchemann, D. (1981). Algebra. In K. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics:11–16 (pp. 102–119). London: Murray.Google Scholar
  30. Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Constituting inscription and thought. In E. D. Amsel & J. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development. The development and consequences of symbolic communication. (pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Malle, G. (2000). Zwei Aspekte von Funktionen: Zuordnung und Kovariation. Mathematik Lehren, 103, 8–11.Google Scholar
  32. Meel, D. (1998). Honors students’ calculus understandings: Comparing Calculus&Mathematica and traditional calculus students. In Shoenfeld, A., J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.) CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education 7: Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III. pp. 163–215.Google Scholar
  33. Meira, L. (1995). The microevolution of mathematical representations in children’s activity. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 269–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oehrtman, M. C., Carlson, M. P. & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students’ understandings of function. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 27–42). Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pirie, S. E. B. & Kieren, T. E. (1989). A recursive theory of mathematical understanding. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(3), 7–11.Google Scholar
  36. Ponce, G. (2007). Critical juncture ahead: Proceed with caution to introduce the concept of function. Mathematics Teacher, 101(2), 136–144.Google Scholar
  37. Ponte, J.P. (1992). The history of the concept of function and some educational implications. The Mathematics Educator, 3(2), 3–8. Retrieved April, 2nd, from
  38. Rasmussen, C. & Blumenfeld, H. (2007). Reinventing solutions to systems of linear differential equations: A case of emergent models involving analytic expressions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sfard, A. & McClain, K. (2002). Special issue: Analyzing tools: Perspective on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 153–388.Google Scholar
  41. Sherin, M. G. (2002). A balancing act: Developing a discourse community in a mathematics community. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skaja, M. (2003). A secondary school student’s understanding of the concept of function—A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(3), 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slavit, D. (1997). An alternate route to the reification of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S. & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tall, D. (1996). Functions and calculus. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook on mathematics education (pp. 289–325). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. H. A. M. (2003). The learning paradox and the learning miracle: Thoughts on primary school mathematics education. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 24, 96–121.Google Scholar
  48. van Nes, F. T. & Doorman, L. M. (2010). The interaction between multimedia data analysis and theory development in design research. Mathematics Education Research Journal 22(1), 6–30.Google Scholar
  49. Vinner, S. & Dreyfuss, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language—Rev’d edition. Cambridge: A. Kozulin. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michiel Doorman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Drijvers
    • 1
  • Koeno Gravemeijer
    • 1
  • Peter Boon
    • 1
  • Helen Reed
    • 1
  1. 1.Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics EducationUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations